Unity Between Catholic and Protestant Christians

[Light of the East]

[QUOTE="PaulCyp1 - It isn't a "belief", but a historical fact that no Christian Church but the Catholic Church existed for the first 1,000 years of Christianity. At that point the Orthodox churches broke away from the original Church, and the first Protestant churches didn't break away from the Catholic Church until 500 years after that.

You need a history lesson. The Church consisted of five patriarchates, not just Rome. There were also the Oriental Orthodox. Rome was not the Church (contrary to the claims of the TraddieCaths). Rome was the first place of honor, the head of the Church, but the Church was wider and broader than Rome.

In the eleventh century, the Roman Church, which was absolutely rife with corruption (kinda like today, for example) began a Papal Reformation. One of the things which the leaders of this reformation felt was necessary to make it a success was to consolidate the power of the Roman Church into a single headship with all authority. Thus was the beginning of Papal Supremacy. Pope Leo IX, aided by men of strong character, pushed to have the Roman Church be acknowledged as THE Church with the office of the pope as the all-powerful center of authority. These ideas had never been known prior, and they incensed the Eastern Christian church and ultimately caused division.

In addition, the Roman Catholic Church is now under the anathema of two ecumenical councils, both of which stated that anyone who changed the wording of the Creed was subject to anathema. The Filioque clause is still heretical today, and it is one of the Roman inventions that will have to go before there is a reunion.

And it is a biblical fact that Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". He wanted us to have "all truth", not a mix of truth and untruth, which is why He said His Church was to remain one.

The truth of the Christian faith, as was taught to the Apostles, is not found in any eclessial body which has invented new doctrines which were not taught by the Early Fathers. Things such as the Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, The Treasury of Merit, Purgatory as a place, etc. were unknown to the Fathers, and therefore do not belong to the Deposit of Faith which they left with us.

Truth cannot conflict with truth, so conflicting beliefs necessarily mean false beliefs. Jesus created a Church with unity. Proud and misguided men destroyed the unity of Christianity by created their own churches, in open defiance of the plainly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers, which was and still is "that they all may be ONE, even as I and My heavenly Father are ONE", destroying the unity of Christianity. It is these renegade churches that need to address the disunity in Christianity, since they are the cause of it.

Like the proud and misguided Cardinal Humberto, who dared interupt a Holy Liturgy to slap a bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia on Easter Sunday? Like the proud men who claimed to "sit in the place of God" (declarations of certain popes)? Like the proud men who have persecuted the Eastern Church for centuries rather than treat them as separated brothers and in humility look to reunite the Church? No, these men have done terrible things to the Eastern Church in their pride, and now we are just supposed to look the other way and accept the claims you just made? In other words, to have unity, all must become Roman Catholic, despite Her errors?

FAT
CHANCE!!!!

 

[Light of the East]

I don't understand. How does it actually become the blood and body of Christ? Sounds like magic to me.

Tell me how the whole and full God of the universe could fit into a tiny embryo in the Virgin Mary.

Sounds like magic to me.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Can a Jehovah's Witness participate in communion in the Anglican Church? How about a Mormon or a Christadelphian?

No. Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons do not believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three in one, so they are ineligible for baptism and communion.

 

[Light of the East]

I feel no need for unity with the rcc.. no need whatsoever.

God's church consists of God's people, and they are one in Christ Jesus. There is unity for them.

It's not denominational. It's unity in Christ...

I have no need to be unified with the world or the things of it, because I am in Christ. The RCC is world. Christ is Christ.

Yes, you are in Christ, but there is a fullness that you miss by not being in the Church which Christ ordained through the Apostles.

It's kinda like the difference between filet mignon for dinner vs a nasty old MacDonald's hamburger. Not being in the Church misses so much.

 

[hedrick]

There is some historical basis for unity, baptism. In the Donatist controversy, the Church recognized that even heretics' baptism is valid, meaning that they are still recognized as Christians. That has generally been maintained, aside from problems with baptists and infant baptism.

Unfortunately, the current framework for churches, as opposed to individuals, seems to come from the Reformation. The Reformers seemed to have believed that it is not permissible to leave the Church, even if it is imperfect. So they had to establish that the Catholic Church wasn't a church at all. The church, they maintained, is defined by preaching the Gospel and properly administering the sacraments. They believed that the Catholic church had so corrupted both preaching and sacraments as to not be a valid church at all. The Catholic side, similarly, dismissed Protestants as having left the Church, using different defining marks.

The Protestant approach turned out to be a bit more flexible. Though it wasn't originally intended to do so, it allowed for the possibility of multiple churches. The Catholic definition didn't.

Today, both Protestants and Catholics accept each other as churches, from a practical point of view. But since Catholic tradition can't be changed (in theory), Catholic theory hasn't quite caught up with reality. Still, there's an official agreement between my church (PCUSA) and the RCC on baptism, and in that agreement both churches acknowledge the other as a church. It's pretty clear that aside from occasional reassertions of Catholic tradition, mainline churches (including the Catholic church) do in fact acknowledge each other as churches, based on common baptism.

That this isn't reflected in common communion seems to me to be scandalous, but so far progress on that front is slow. There are also problems among Protestants as well, since a number of our churches don't permit communion with other Protestant traditions.

 

[HARK!]

I believe that the only unity we should seek is in YHWH's truth.

Despite my disagreements with Catholicism, to my understanding, Catholics are united. However, being raised Protestant, I understand how Protestantism is divided among itself. I attribute this mostly to mistranslations of scripture, and doctrines that come out of that. Why do we trust the words of men? As I seek YHWH's truth; I've come to understand that on many points, I disagree with Protestantism for the same reasons that I disagree with Catholicism. Protestants are protesting Catholics.

Again, we will achieve unity when we join to throw off doctrine, and work together seek YHWH's truth, as Yahshua Ha'Mashiach instructed, as the body of Yahshua.

(CLV) Lk 12:51
Are you supposing that I came along to give peace to the earth? Not, I am saying to you, but rather division,

I'm learning, more and more, to stop trusting in men, and to put my trust in YHWH and Yahshua to lead me to truth.

 

[Light of the East]

[QUOTE="HARK! I believe that the only unity we should seek is in YHWH's truth.

Uh huh. What "truth?" Where exactly do we find this "truth" of which you speak? How do we know it is the "true truth?" You do realize that in Protestantism alone there are dozens, if not hundreds of people all preaching the "truth" and all in opposition to each other, right?

So where is this "truth" to be found? In "sola scriptura?" The Bible alone and in its entirety, as one now deceased, famous Protestant Calvinist teacher used to say on his radio show? Well, that's working real well, isn't it, seeing that just here on this forum there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of different beliefs, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit and all claiming their truth comes from the Bible.

So where?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

According to Vatican II, the purpose of the Catholic church is to have every single human being and everything they own to come under the total control of "Christ", or in other words, in the direct control of the Pope, who is the "vicar" of Christ. That is the form of unity that is the only unity acceptable to the Catholic church.

I don't think there is any kind of a perfect solution to the problem of Christian unity.

1) I actually think Catholicism actually is the best solution in many ways towards some kind of actual realistic "E Pluribus Unum" (out of the many, One) unity to borrow that phrase from the U.S. Constitutional heritage. Most other Christian traditions both Protestant and Orthodox have people more or less officially or unoffficially converting their beliefs, behavior etc. around a group norm while in Catholicism it is actually possible to have very diverse groups like Charismatic Catholics and other contemporary folks , Eastern Catholics and traditional Latin Mass folks etc. all united in one body, but also able to do their own thing so to speak.



2) There of course is the solution to what your proposing, a kind of invisible spiritual unity that we have or can have in Christ, but there are some potential problems with that kind of paradigm.

A) Catholics, and other traditional Christians will point to very specific scriptures regarding the Church as One Body, One Building built on Christ, A City on a Hill etc. and make a very direct Biblical argument against that sort of thing.

B) Human nature / self confirming bias. Even people who believe this sort of thing will want often want it on their own terms (They will expect people to conform to their view of X to be true Christians etc.).



3) I believe that the Christian Church was always destined to have some sort of problem with unity. Even if the Reformation, Great Schism, Chalcedon, Ephesus, and Nestorian heresy/controversy had never occurred their would have been something else that was more minor that would have happened because the Earth is a big place. Without modern travel and communications, it impossible to keep Humpty Dumpty sitting on the wall (and in one piece). And that goes doubly when you consider the problem of languages, cultures, and the isolation that comes from counteries, and empires being in a state of cold or hot war with each other for decades or centuries...

(I say this only because of the Meta-narrative of various Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Messianic Jews etc. who typically lament, "Things would have been great if only X did not happen".).

But saying this of course Christians should take some kind of steps towards reasonable Ecumenism etc. which after all is part of the reason I am on the board.

 

[All4Christ]

Those people no doubt think that being baptized disciples of Christ is the gauge of that unity, not membership in any particular denomination.

Not all believe baptism is even needed. My old church didn’t, though we did believe it was an ordinance that we should follow out of obedience to God.

 

[HARK!]

Uh huh. What "truth?" Where exactly do we find this "truth" of which you speak? How do we know it is the "true truth?" You do realize that in Protestantism alone there are dozens, if not hundreds of people all preaching the "truth" and all in opposition to each other, right?

So where is this "truth" to be found? In "sola scriptura?" The Bible alone and in its entirety, as one now deceased, famous Protestant Calvinist teacher used to say on his radio show? Well, that's working real well, isn't it, seeing that just here on this forum there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of different beliefs, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit and all claiming their truth comes from the Bible.

So where?

After we throw out doctrine, we could start with the critical text.

 

[Blade]

When someone even tries to like reach out what happens? Copeland.. yeah.. they still make fun of them for that. Jesus came in the flesh died on the cross was buried rose the 3rd day. The only way to the Father <-- this is not enough? I watched this wise man talking one time where they were trying to go after Catholics. Said.. can't they be right about Jesus just wrong about Mary?

My point is.. Is not Christ enough. You can't say this for every one of them out there but.. Come together in His name.. THEN He is THERE!

 

[Robin Mauro]

I have a question:

How can Catholics and Protestants have true unity while the Catholic church believes it is the only true church and that to be fully accepted as a true Christian a Protestant must convert to Catholicism, accept the Pope as their spiritual leader, and subscribe to Catholic doctrine and theology?

This issue came up on the Catholic forum, and I felt quite limited in discussing this because that forum is protected for Catholic believers. This is why I am bringing up the question in a more appropriate forum where those who are concerned about this can have a free discussion about the issues.

In my opinion, most Protestants, Pentecostals, and Charismatics wouldn't dream in a million years to even consider converting to Catholicism, so I cannot see any possibility of any form of unity between Catholics and Protestants. They are as totally different as chalk and cheese.

A Catholic once told me Catholic means universal, in other words, the entire church. I don't know that this is accepted by the leadership though.
Whenever I visit a Catholic or Episcopal chuch and we say the sinners creed, I always leave the word Catholic out and just say church.
When I was a kid, most denominations, or at least many, believed they were the only one that was saved. That has changed over time.
My view is that every denomination has their strong points, and their weak ones, but I've never had a Catholic tell me I'm not saved because I'm not Catholic.
But maybe they are thinking it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It seems a bit of a silly argument especially when the logic of it would call all non-catholics not Christians. Implicitly the rules of CF would even disagree with this. So Catholics, in order to participate in forums like this, must ignore where this logic points and make up other definitions. Sort of like the charismatic version of are you a "Spirit-filled" Christian.

Conversely the rules of CF would prevent anyone saying that the Catholic church is a fraud. So all we can do is to engage in for and against discussions concerning Catholic and Protestant doctrine.

 

[d taylor]

I do not give a care about any identification labels, too bad i had to pick a type of label to post here, They did not have gentile believer as a choice. Because the only division there is and that has been placed by God is Jew or gentile.

If a person has not trusted in The Messiah for His free gift of His Eternal Life. You are in the same boat (no matter your label) as anyone who has never believed, atheist, buddhist, morman, cults, etc...

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I fully took part in Eucharist at a Catholic church and the priest knew I was not Catholic

He must have been a fairly liberal priest.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Answer: they cannot. The most that could be achieved would be mutual respect at a certain level and, I suppose, join efforts on some projects.


Unfortunate, isn't it? Some of the topics there and the posters over there are quite interesting and not particularly sharp-edged...but still we are flatly prohibited from participating and are even constantly warned that it is a "Catholics only" forum.

That's why I started this thread on this open forum where everyone can discuss the issues freely.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

To set the record straight, and I hope you know this from previous discussions in Traditional Theology, we do not believe that “those outside of their particular faith are detestable, outcast dogs who are just feeding on garbage; and that would include people of about every other Protestant, Pentecostal, and Charismatic church!”

I appreciate that. But it does give the wrong impression when someone from the Orthodox faith quotes Scripture which says that it is not right to give that which is is holy to dogs, doesn't it?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

See my post on the Covenant of God. You have NO IDEA how a covenant works.
(Don't feel bad -99% of Christians are covenant ignorant, even covenantal Calvinists)

The only valid covenant I know is the New Covenant between the Father and Jesus that through His one and only sacrifice on the cross, the Father has agreed to give eternal life to those who have faith alone in Jesus.

If faith is mixed with works in order to try to be acceptable to God, then the the person is not a beneficiary to that covenant because the Scripture says that no one will be justified through works. So, if there is a covenant between the Catholic church and its members, then it is not part of the New Covenant.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Tell me how the whole and full God of the universe could fit into a tiny embryo in the Virgin Mary.

Sounds like magic to me.

I think you're scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't think there is any kind of a perfect solution to the problem of Christian unity.

1) I actually think Catholicism actually is the best solution in many ways towards some kind of actual realistic "E Pluribus Unum" (out of the many, One) unity to borrow that phrase from the U.S. Constitutional heritage. Most other Christian traditions both Protestant and Orthodox have people more or less officially or unoffficially converting their beliefs, behavior etc. around a group norm while in Catholicism it is actually possible to have very diverse groups like Charismatic Catholics and other contemporary folks , Eastern Catholics and traditional Latin Mass folks etc. all united in one body, but also able to do their own thing so to speak.



2) There of course is the solution to what your proposing, a kind of invisible spiritual unity that we have or can have in Christ, but there are some potential problems with that kind of paradigm.

A) Catholics, and other traditional Christians will point to very specific scriptures regarding the Church as One Body, One Building built on Christ, A City on a Hill etc. and make a very direct Biblical argument against that sort of thing.

B) Human nature / self confirming bias. Even people who believe this sort of thing will want often want it on their own terms (They will expect people to conform to their view of X to be true Christians etc.).



3) I believe that the Christian Church was always destined to have some sort of problem with unity. Even if the Reformation, Great Schism, Chalcedon, Ephesus, and Nestorian heresy/controversy had never occurred their would have been something else that was more minor that would have happened because the Earth is a big place. Without modern travel and communications, it impossible to keep Humpty Dumpty sitting on the wall (and in one piece). And that goes doubly when you consider the problem of languages, cultures, and the isolation that comes from counteries, and empires being in a state of cold or hot war with each other for decades or centuries...

(I say this only because of the Meta-narrative of various Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Messianic Jews etc. who typically lament, "Things would have been great if only X did not happen".).

But saying this of course Christians should take some kind of steps towards reasonable Ecumenism etc. which after all is part of the reason I am on the board.

For the reasons you quite correctly stated, we are never going to get unity based on denominational union. This is because as humans we all have different perspectives on doctrine and styles of worship that we feel comfortable with. Not only that, but there is the continuation of the issue that Paul faced in the Corinthian church where there were opposing factions with those following Peter against those of Apollos, and against them the more "spiritual" ones saying that they follow Christ and not the others. We have the same denominational and factional issues but on a much larger scale.

The problem with the Catholic church is its clear statement in Vatican II, that because the Catholic church is the only one truly connected to Christ, and says that "all humanity and its possessions need to come under "Christ" (ie: under the authority of the Pope), and that all those who depend on Christ through faith alone are to be anathema (condemned to hell), along with those who don't believe in Indulgences (paying money to get grandpa out of Purgatory) to be similarly condemned to hell, and failure to attend Catholic Mass has the similar penalty, there is no way that any non-Catholic will accept unity under those conditions; and the Catholic church will never compromise on any of the conclusions of Vatican II, which confirms the Council of Trent, which totally condemned Reformed Protestantism.

In fact, during the Reformation, Popes sent out clear instructions that the Reformers were to be exterminated, and the result made the Nazi Holocaust appear like a teddy bears picnic. I know that some will find that difficult to believe, but the actual documented Papal instructions are on file for any researcher to read for themselves.